Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Vulnerabilities / Threats

12/10/2019
02:00 PM
Irfan Ahmed
Irfan Ahmed
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Intel's CPU Flaws Continue to Create Problems for the Tech Community

We can't wait out this problem and hope that it goes away. We must be proactive.

The tech community was once again blindsided with news last month of another security exploit involving Intel's processors; exploits have continued to be discovered since Meltdown and Spectre were first unveiled two years ago, causing widespread concern about the ramifications for computer systems globally. In addition to leaving sensitive data exposed, the vulnerabilities also put businesses in the difficult, but necessary, position of implementing mitigations that can seriously reduce the performance of computers and servers.

In January 2018, researchers revealed two exploits that take advantage of side-channel vulnerabilities found in computer chips manufactured since the mid-1990s. Since that time, six additional exploits — Foreshadow ZombieloadRIDLFallout, SWAPGS, and now TAA  — have been discovered that take advantage of the same vulnerabilities. While chips made by AMD and ARM are affected to a minimal degree, the vast majority of Intel's chips are affected by all of these exploits. And due to Intel's dominant market position, this vulnerability can be found in nearly every computer on the planet.

These exploits take advantage of a process called "speculative execution," a process introduced in the 1990s by Intel and other chipmakers as they sought to increase the speed of computer processors. In short, computer processors can "speculate" (or guess) what a user will run next, increasing speed by not having to wait to execute actions until they are formally received. While this process was credited with significantly improving the speed of computers, the exploits are able to give unauthorized users access to what should be confidential data, creating a vast security vulnerability. They typically leak data from different internal CPU buffers such as line-fill buffers, load ports, and store buffers.

To address this problem, Intel has provided software patches or businesses can apply other workarounds, such as disabling hyper-threading technology in vulnerable computers. However, both of these fixes can reduce the performance of CPUs. LoginVSI recently released a survey of IT professionals regarding the impact of the patches and found that approximately 20% of them experienced performance reductions of up to 10% on their systems, and another 11% said they experienced a performance hit up to 15%. Some respondents had performance impacts as high as 20%.

While addressing this problem is challenging, what is clear, as noted recently by a leading Linux developer, is that the security problems with Intel's chips "are not going away." So, we cannot simply wait this problem out and hope that it disappears. We must be proactive.

To understand the extent of the risk, the first thing any business should do is conduct an audit of the CPUs that it has in its systems. The easiest approach would then be to replace all affected CPUs with unaffected hardware. However, replacing all affected hardware may very well be cost-prohibitive.

Therefore, businesses should begin immediately diversifying and randomizing their CPUs. It can do this by purchasing unaffected chips (for example, from AMD) as it goes through its normal upgrade cycles and then randomizing affected Intel chips across its systems, strategically placing them in servers and computers where they are least vulnerable to hacks. In addition, by placing the affected CPUs in areas with lighter workloads, a business can also reduce the overall effect of the performance reductions caused by the software patches.

It would also be prudent to hire experienced IT security staff, plan for the increased energy costs of running current systems at maximum for longer periods of time to offset the performance reductions of the patches, or identify revenue streams to purchase new servers to add processing capacity.

While it is clear that being insecure is not a practical option, businesses must remember that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution. A company's remedies to this ongoing challenge must be assessed within the context of its own unique and dynamic technology environment. Undoubtedly, this challenge will be expensive, burdensome, and time consuming for businesses.

Related Content:

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "Criminals Hide Fraud Behind the Green Lock Icon."

Irfan Ahmed is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Computer Science at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), where he runs the Security and Forensics Engineering (SAFE) Lab. His research interests include system security, malware, digital forensics, and industrial ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Waleedbaig1
50%
50%
Waleedbaig1,
User Rank: Apprentice
12/11/2019 | 10:43:27 PM
Is the risk really reduce by this suggested approach ?
In a production environment, Having a mix of intel processors (vulnerable) and other vendors processors will certainly reduce the liklhood of the breach but overall impact will remain same. Any thought ?
Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5216
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.9.0, 5.2.0, and 6.3.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection. Upon seei...
CVE-2020-5217
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.8.0, 5.1.0, and 6.2.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a semicolon could be injected leading to directive injection. This could b...
CVE-2020-5223
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In PrivateBin versions 1.2.0 before 1.2.2, and 1.3.0 before 1.3.2, a persistent XSS attack is possible. Under certain conditions, a user provided attachment file name can inject HTML leading to a persistent Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The vulnerability has been fixed in PrivateBin v1.3...
CVE-2019-20399
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A timing vulnerability in the Scalar::check_overflow function in Parity libsecp256k1-rs before 0.3.1 potentially allows an attacker to leak information via a side-channel attack.
CVE-2020-7915
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An issue was discovered on Eaton 5P 850 devices. The Ubicacion SAI field allows XSS attacks by an administrator.